United States v. Luis Juarez

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that counsel was deficient for failing to raise a defense not previously considered by this court when reasonable investigation would have revealed legal authority that made the defense plausible
• finding counsel’s “failure to investigate [the facts or law necessary] was unreasonable,” in part because counsel admitted that he would have advised his client differently in regard to a guilty plea had he uncovered the relevant information
• “Indeed, [counsel] testified to his own mistake and stated that had he independently investigated the defense, he would have withdrawn [the] guilty pleas.”
• “Indeed, [counsel] testified to his own mistake and stated that had he independently investigated the defense, he would have withdrawn [the] guilty pleas.”
• even where there was “[n]o Fifth Circuit case law” in support, counsel’s failure to look up persuasive, non-binding out-of-circuit authority—both published and unpublished—was deficient considering prevailing professional norms
• “[T]his circuit has recognized that, at a minimum, counsel has the duty to interview potential witnesses and to make an independent investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case.” (alteration in original) (quoting Nealy, 764 F.2d at 1177)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).